As with Lyndal Roper and Heiko Oberman, this take on Heinz Schilling's "Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval" is an expansion of my Goodreads review, as with the other two. And with that, let's dig in.
Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval by Heinz Schilling
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
This was kind of tough book to rate.
Schilling gets partway behind the 8-ball in the prologue, when he repeats as fact the “Here I stand” legend — and legend it is — from Worms. He states it again when the time comes to discuss Worms in more detail. I was ready to 4-star and no higher for that reason. At the same time, he clearly rejects stuff clearly considered legend, like the story of throwing the inkwell at the devil. Elsewhere, he tries to split the difference on Oct. 31, 1517, claiming that Luther or somebody had a copy of the 95 affixed somewhere, but not the door, at the Castle Church, while ignoring what Luther may have done in the days before that to speed their dissemination.
And, no for sure on "Here I stand," as I recently explained. Per the same piece, and in yet more depth, per this blog post, the nailing of the 95 Theses, IF it happened, was not done to the door of the Castle Church, but rather, some sort of "bulletin board" beside it. And, IF it happened, Luther had also mailed out copies of the Theses to people like Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, so the nailing, IF it happened, was pretty much superfluous. But, it almost certainly didn't. Melanchthon, who wasn't at Wittenberg yet in 1517, was the first to write up this claim, and Luther never made it in his own life.
He is also behind that 8-ball, though not as egregiously, when in the first section, he seems to indicate a certain chunk of educated people besides Columbus weren’t sure the world was round. I’m sure he doesn’t directly claim that of the Portuguese court, but it was a bit verstimmeled here. In reality, after the Spanish rejected him the first time, the Portuguese rejected him because they knew his distance estimates were off. I’m not sure if Eratosthenes’ guesstimates of the Earth’s size had come back to light yet, but I have no doubt that by the 1480s, Portugal had sailed far enough south in nearly a straight line that they knew Ptolemy was off. (The book 1493 claims that Columbus accepted Muslim rulers' guesstimates on the length of a degree of latitude at a flat 60 miles, so came up with an estimate between that of Eratosthenes and Ptolemy.)
But, Schilling also has some very good stuff. His framing of two main, important issues, led me to be ready to given him the benefit of the doubt on the above and five-star him.
Here’s some lesser things I either learned or had refreshed for me that aren’t mentioned in Oberman and Roper.
He talks early on the number and variety of vernacular translations of the bible long before Luther. Schilling says many of them were lay driven, like with the Waldensians, which has issues for Luther’s “priesthood of all believers” not being quite in line with the Predigeramt, which then gave him room to smash down lay-led Anabaptists. (That said, Schilling does touch a bit on Luther backtracking from his true “priesthood of all believers.”)
Notes the family name of Luder and how Luther, pulling a humanism, Graecizied it to Luther based on Eleutherios. He had “tried on” Eleutherios as a new, humanist surname, but soon let it go again.
Luther the hypocrite? Twenty years after supporting bigamy for Philip of Hesse, Schilling notes he accused Spalatin of supporting incest by OKing a widowered pastor to marry his dead wife’s stepmom. (Apparently our Old Testament scholar hadn’t read up on levirate marriage and other things, nor did he recognize how Rome’s ever tighter rules on marriage had led to the incipience of something like the “nuclear family.” Nor did he ever wonder if Roman canon law on this issue shouldn't be challenged.)
He notes Charles did not officially send a copy of the post-Worms Imperial bann to Elector Frederick, therefore it never had the force of law inside of Electoral Saxony. (This was apparently some sort of handshake deal between the two.) This, in turn, is why Luther went halfway to Augsburg in 1530. He went to the southern border of Electoral Saxon land.
He's better than Oberman or Roper on Luther vis a vis the Reformed, though not by much, especially compared to Roper on the Sacrament. Still no depth, nor whether Luther ever had an answer for Karlstadt on Greek grammar. (Oberman ignores this issue entirely; Roper and Schilling both never answer whether Luther ever tried to call out Karlstadt.)
New to me (and again, never taught at my conservative German Lutheran seminary) Schilling does note that Europe-wide (it eventually extended beyond there), Lutherans and Reformed came to an agreement in 1973 in Leuenberg, Switzerland. (LCMS doesn't discuss this! Nor, seemingly, does the ELCA in detail. It led to a United Protestant Church in France and was 13 years in the making. It covered other doctrinal issues as well, and led to a fellowship of Lutheran, Reformed, and Prussian Union type churches in much of Europe, which also included … Waldensians! Besides the Eucharist, other areas of discussion and eventual agreement included Christology [remember the old “the finite is not capable of the infinite”?], predestination and justification. European, including British, Methodist churches joined in 1997. Interestingly, though it has spread to the New World, with America's UMC, among others, and even to Lutheranism in Argentina, no Lutheran body in either Canada or the US has signed on to the Leuenberg agreement.)
Schilling doesn't father-figure psychoanalyze Luther, unlike Roper does at times (but not all the time by any means). He simply portrays him as obstinent, and increasingly so with age, and not just due to torments of aging. Says this was the case after Worms onward.
That said, per the subtitle of “Rebel in a Time of Upheaval,” Schilling nailed Luther’s psychology quite well. Per a Sherman T. Potter comment on a M*A*S*H episode, he was just a stubborn Missouri mule and got more that way the older he got, especially from the Peasants’ Revolt on. It’s why he addressed Zwingli and other Reformed at Marburg and elsewhere with as much vituperation as he addressed at popes.
That said, Schilling doesn’t extrapolate this to its conclusion.
Luther essentially as an individual acted just like he said the popes and councils he deplored acted: As though being infallible.
Spoiling for a fight with Erasmus yet biding his time?
Schilling is definitely good on Lutheranism emerging as a territorial church vis-a-vis the various Calivinisms that sought, rather, to take over the state, or the Separatist types who sought to be separate. This relates to one of two main issues he gets better than Roper or Oberman, or maybe somewhat to both.
Schilling, as a professor of early modern history, rather than one of theology, is good at Luther’s Sitz im Leben, the actual transition to early modernity. At times, he contrasts the Luther of the 100th, 200th, 300th, 400th and 500th birthdays, at least as celebrated in Germany states in the first three cases, united Germany in the fourth and East and West Germany in the fifth, vs. the reality of Luther’s stance on economics and other things. He ties some of this to the development of Lutheranism vs. Calvinism.
The other item that he was good on, and stressed a lot in the second half of the book, was Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms.
Well, at first. He was great about talking about Luther on the two kingdoms on paper, but NOT as this played out, or mis-played out, in reality.
In other words, there’s a WHOPPER of a misfire on Luther’s doctrine of the two kingdoms vs Luther’s reality, namely in his comments about Jews and Turks. Luther’s comments about the Jews are well-known, including his willingness to invoke the power of the state against them. And, that’s highly contradictory to his professed doctrine. Read more about Luther on the Jews here.
And, a lesser failure, IMO, of claiming Luther showed his two-kingdoms theology by leaving war against the Turks in the secular hand. If Luther had not peddled every Christian PR line about Muslims, would he necessarily have called for the Imperial state to wage war against the Ottomans primarily because they were Muslim, not because they were a threat to the Empire? After all, Francis I of France made an alliance with them.
Schilling then claims that Luther’s focus re the Jews was only a religious anti-Judaism but later admits Luther talked about Jewish blood at the end of his life. Related: Jewish occupational stereotypes, if not about “blood,” are about culture and not religion.
Schilling tries to defend himself here as writing a historical presentation, not a critical history. To me, it comes off as an apologia, in its theological and related use, as in a 1531 Lutheran foundational work, rather than a historical presentation.
So, five bottom lines:
1. This is a more uneven four-star than Roper for sure and maybe than Oberman.
2. Had Schilling not peddled the two-kingdom issues so hard, I'd been kinder. But he left himself open.
3. Of the three, Roper is best. She’s arguably a 4.5 star, but still leaves enough off the table to not get the bump. The two gents don’t cross 4.0 stars.
4. The back of my mind wonders if Schilling is a member of the “free” Lutheran Church in Germany.
5. None of the biographies does a great job (other than the Jewish polemics issue) of dealing with post-Augsburg Luther, tho overall, Schilling is the best, mainly at talking about how Luther got more stubborn, egotistical, and convinced of his own terminal rightness.
View all my reviews
On the big picture? Contra what I said at the end of Oberman, I hadn't scratched my Luther bio itch enough. NOW I have.
Of "giants" from the past? Bainton, were I to re-read it for review purposes today, would probably get a 3.5. Maybe a bump up to four. Erickson's "Young Man Luther" would be a flat three, if that. And, I have no desire to re-read either one.
No comments:
Post a Comment